Hm. A minor point: "Ideology" is another word for "things we think are true"; respectfully, I think you may be confusing "that which I think is true" with "that which is definitively true"
Disengenuous is deliberately deceptive. This is an anonymous internet debate forum; nothing here is worth lying about. However, I agree that whether an unborn human child is an unborn human child is something we are likely to vehemently disagree on - the trick is, can we disagree vehemently without disagreeing venomously
Which ( see point above ) is another way of saying "I don't like this formulation".
Roe - like Obergefell - was a judicial seizure of power with the intent of deciding a political matter for the rest of the country. Roe also meant that the opposition would have to go through the court - the same body the left had used - in order to make that opposition effectual.
Roe was absolutely an attempt by the left to settle a political question via the court, and a breathtaking one at that - as even Justice Ginsburg recognized. Her preference for their conclusion did not obviate her recognition of the flaws in their methods, any more than my disagreement with their conclusion makes my recognition of the flaws in their methods somehow illegitimate.
The accusation you are levying seems to be "Yeah, well, but you disagree with them!". Well, yes, however, respectfully, that's an ad hominem, and not terribly convincing.
On the contrary, it is consistent with the history of the past half century. When you seek your political victories via the court instead of through the political process, your opposition will begin to do the same.
It is not patently untrue, which is why Justice Roberts was the only Justice on SCOTUS who accepted that it
might be true. Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Alito, Comey-Barrett, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Gorsuch did not all - for separate reasons and independently - come to a legal conclusion that was patently untrue.
It is not, which is why the Mississippi law in question directly challenged Roe, and, again, why 8 of the 9 Justices (including those who agree with you) came to the conclusion it was not.
Griswold is an apt comparison. Roe made it's dependence on magical penumbras of emanations of the
facio quod volo doctrine less explicit than Griswold, but, both - as you allude to - started with their preferred political conclusion, and worked backwards to construct an argument for it.